bostoniensis
Don't feel sorry for me, but I really would like to know when, and how, you became gay, if it is not too personal, and did anyone try to help you, and if so why did you refuse their help. I was lucky in that I was very strong for someone my age and I could defend myself but some of my friends could not. Only one suffered the rest of his life, even though it was only in seclusion, and he had a good wife and family otherwise. I am looking for information to base your claim on that you apparently do believe that you were born this way, and you had no choice, and you are happy and consider yourself lucky to be gay. It just does not fit with my experiences in life and I would be glad to listen to you, like you expect me to listen to you. Was your family happy? I know that you are young enough to remember.

"If I can marry someone of the same sex then why can't I be married to a dog, sheep, goat or any other creature?"

If you find a dog, sheep or goat that has told you of its dying love for you, expressed an interested in declaring I do and is willing to go to city hall to sign the marriage document with you, then I won't stand in your way.

@Yankee Kid

I'm saddened by your statements here because you seem to have faced something when you were younger that gives you this concept of gay people as predators out to turn you. I can promise you that I was gay long before I met any other gay people, just as there are many children who use their left hands to eat and play with toys long before they learn to write.

You state:
"Speaking of love, how do you think families feel if their child tells them that they are gay? Do you think they tell them, "great, you can now marry another man and be equal." If you love them would you tell them that they were born that way and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't that a bit like telling someone whom you love that is an alcoholic that you will furnish them with all that they can drink because it runs in the family"

That is exactly what I would hope someone would do if their child were gay. "Great! it doesn't make a difference to me because you are born that way! I worry about you though because there are many people who would compare you to someone diseased and would be ashamed to have you in their family. I'm glad our family is not that way."

Dr. V, everything is NOT a choice. Your desires are not a choice. If you desire to eat chocolate cake, but you decide not to eat it because of the calories that is a choice. Desiring to eat it was not a choice. You don't choose to be attracted to women or men. You may choose to have sex with a man or a woman, but you're not gay or straight based on that decision. What classifies you as gay or straight or bisexual is your desire for the opposite, same or both sexes.

"With all due respect, as a heterosexual man, the only difference between myself and a gay man is sexual preference. Other than that we are the same, and should be treated equal."

Exactly! Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should be treated equally, which is why they should both be allowed to marry the person they love.

@netzach Your argument is completely invalid. That something is "(1)...non-standard, (2)...considered immoral by many, and (3) has been illegal for a long time." does not give just cause to stick with the status quo.

Interracial marriage was considered non-standard, immoral and was illegal for a long time, but if you believe it should be disallowed you're a bigot incapable of having a rational discussion.

Slavery was considered standard, moral, and legal for a long time, yet that doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

To make a fair judgment we need to consider the purpose of marriage not its history. The purpose is to give two people who love each other an institution which is a binding agreement to love and care for one another in an equal partnership. It is also an institution that provides a basis for raising a family. Both of these can be fulfilled through a same-sex union as well as through a opposite-sex union.

I can't understand why anyone would want to deny someone this right when it has absolutely no effect on his or herself personally.

This argument about Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve, has become innocuous at best. Fact is that God created all three. I know people three people with each name, and all three are well-adjusted, productive citizens of this country; and yes all three are LGBT and have partner. One couple even have children.

All three are the most altruistic people I know. They work for non profits, which serve the poor, volunteer for local community services, and they all worship the same God you do. I have yet to see an fire and brimstone burn their houses down, not any visitation from demonic beings. They are all happy and loving people and offer their love to anyone that wants it.

I may have a skewed opinion of them, I love them all dearly. But I can't see how a loving God would punish any of these people. They bring no harm to anyone.

Now other than thumping your bible and incriminating people of the sin of love. How do you contribute to the community of humans? What do you so to stop suffering? There is suffering, our job as fellow human beings is to find ways to relieve it, and nothing else.

living in a country with gay-marriage I can say that there was little backlash and that society did not collapse. On the contrary.
Basically what I'm saying is that people like you are making a mockery of marriage. But -assuming you are married- your own. Is you're marriage so weak that it is threathened by two individuals who love each other getting married? If so, I pity you for you are indeed in need of some pity. If it isn't then I don't see why you're meddling in other people's affairs. It's none of your business and I suggest you keep your nose focused on your own affairs.

-------------

As for the people saying that the state should get out of marriage: I suggest checking history a bit before coming to the conclusion that marriage has always been the business of the state. For as long as Mankind has been civilised government has been legislating marriage. Hammurabi's Codex, the oldest known has laws about marriage. Laws that were, at the time of writing, already old.

What a load of crap. Let me see... all those people in favor of this absurd idea suddenly change their minds when they get to the ballot box? Nice propaganda piece! Trying to use a bit of peer pressure to get people to cave?

Gays can already marry, they just have to marry somebody of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is. Period. There is no right being denied, this is the left's attempt to make a mockery of marriage. No way, no how will this ever take hold. They may get it passed with one of those corrupt judges, but if they do, the backlash will be all the more fierce. I find the whole discussion insulting and offensive.

You need first to understand the comments I made. It's ok to be gay. There is no problem with that. But, why is it a "lifestyle", and who said so? Being a heterosexual, is not a lifestyle, it is a sexual orientation, therefore it is a choice. If a gay person decided one day to "experiment" with a heterosexual partner, that is indeed their "choice" is it not. And if it wasn't their cup of tea, it would be perfectly normal for them to say they, "tried it once, but wasn't for them", therefore they decide to continue being gay, is that not a "choice" to do so? If someone bullies you into stealing a car, and you say no, you have made a choice. If a heterosexual woman expresses her love for a gay male co-worker, and he tells her "no thank you, I'm gay", he has made a choice. My point is, as long as you know who you are, you count. If a famous actor was a friend of yours, and he insisted upon acting out scenes from his past movies, loudly and obnoxiously whenever you went out together, would that not be annoying? Would you understand his need to express his "theatrical lifestyle", even though it got on everyone else's nerves? After the point, "we know you are an actor, no be a normal person, thank you"? Or a friend who was a Surgeon, etc., get it? Gay is a sexual choice only, full stop, and it's ok if you choose that and should be seen as perfectly equal under the law, I agree. There isn't a "gay way" to bake a pizza, or wash your car, or mow the lawn. That's why I say it cannot be considered a lifestyle. If a Solicitor decorated his office with statues of naked men, whould that be the "lifestyle" of a "gay Solicitor"? If yes, does that mean ALL Museums are gay? and if you have ever been to one you supported the gay lifestyle by paying admission price to get in? With all due respect, as a heterosexual man, the only difference between myself and a gay man is sexual preference. Other than that we are the same, and should be treated equal. I should not get special priveleges for my sexual orientation, and neither should my gay counterpart in this particular equation. Treated as equals. Nobody is judging anyone. Your "choice" is yours. For those who insist it is not a "choice" be carfeul, because if you call it something other than a choice, you are judging yourselves, are you not? That would lend a negative stigma to your "choice" to be gay, would it not? You also cannot say it is an instinct because then it would be mixed in with "eat/f**k/kill" which are also perfectly normal instincts for our species, we just have to control those urges, OOPS!, calling it instinctive means controlling that urge... just be happy with your choice, and your right under the law to be treated with respect, and equally. Those are both huge steps forward in this wierd world we live in, no? I support your right to "choose", isn't that the slogan? Even the Pro abortionists say I am Pro Choice. EVERYTHING is a choice, there are pros/cons to our choices.

I was so thrilled to read some of the enlightened comments here that I ran straight home to tell my husband 'Honey, great news, we don't have to be gay. The guys commenting on the Economist website say its just a choice we made, and they should know because some of them have even met gay people.' Naturally we felt a bit red-faced for having put ourselves and our families through all that coming-out heartache when it turns out we could have just chosen not to be gay at all. I just can't believe we didn't think of that.

We were much more concerned, however, to hear from some posters on here of the damage our so-called gay marriage is doing to the unions of hetrosexuals everywhere, and thus the existential threat we pose to the future of our species. Not wanting to give the Four Horsemen any more excuses to saddle up, we immediately dissolved our pretend family arrangement and went our separate ways. The argument over custody of the Madonna CDs got a little ugly, but I think we can all agree that we did the right thing for the future of mankind. Thanks guys!

I'm beginning to wonder how many % of the Economist's editors are gay. Judging from the # of articles on this subject, probably quite a few. After all, what does world economy have to do with homosexuality?

What is the argument behind why gay marriage should be legal? Because what harm could they possibly do to anyone else? By the same token, why not allow brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, grandfathers to marry granddaughters? As long as they don't produce any offsprings, what harm does it do to anyone else? If it then becomes a question of morality, then why doesn't the same moral argument apply to gays? Until someone can give me a satisfactory answer to that, I don't believe gay marriage should be legal. After all, there is a reason why it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring in every species. It's the way nature intended for us to live on.

Mr. Paladino... You yourself have been brainwashed into thinking that it's not acceptable. Can't you open your eyes and see the irony. Your biggest fears are staring you right in the face. Your biggest opportunities to personal growth and happiness are obviously your acceptance of others differences. Amazing that you're a leader with this kind of bigotry and hatred in your soul. You can do better.

It astounds me that people spend so much energy on passing judgements about others and the way they live their lives, especially when the lives of these 'others' are in no way affecting their own. (I somehow seriously doubt if these homophobes are inviting gay people over to dinner or interacting with them in any way). If these upholders of 'morality' (as defined by them), are so outraged by the lack of values in society, why don't they spend some of this precious energy doing some good for society - go volunteer in soup kitchens, deliver some meals for the homeless of aged, volunteer in a hospital etc etc. DO something good other instead of putting down the lives of people you do not know as evidence of your social conscience. Get a life people! And get over yourselves - find another way to feel better about your own lives and its shallowness.

Now that's progrssive. But what’s up with the public school sex-ed programs? They barely get past the basics of homoerotic techniques. And the healthcare reforms doesn't cover enough of the expense of sex changes. And it is a violation of free speech rights to discourage masturbation; au contraire, we need to encourage our young people to experiment, to discover their inner (true) feelings. I mean we’re nowhere near 50/50——there must be something amiss! We clearly need to start younger: Instead of GI Joe, our boys should play with GI Gaylen. And we need more exemplary relationships in the books the kids read, TV and cartoons. (What is PBS up to?)

176 previous comments, many of them remarkably silly, a fair number sadly hateful, some thought provoking in perhaps unintended ways, yet not one technical comment amongst them.

Well, I liked the study of statistics, so I have some technical queries:

First: the chart shows bars of equal width for the indicated groups, which would suggest a default assumption that the populations of the groups are of equal size. Clearly that is not the case. Perhaps the chart might have been more informative if the relative numbers of the groups, either in millions of as a percentage of total US population had been given. Could that information perhaps be provided?

Second: the chart splits the population into groups, but leaves out certain groups. For example, why are believers in Islam left out? Hindus? They may be small minorities in America, but so too are Jews. Further, while whites and blacks are identified, how about Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, etc.,? Could this information not also have been provided?

Third: the stat I would like to see is a break-down on the basis of responses by people who are already married as opposed to people who are not married, and perhaps as a function of the number of years they have been married, whether they have raised kids, and so on.

The only arguments presented against gay marriage are religious ones. The American constitution requires seperation of church and state. Unless we do away with state recognition of marriage, the only acceptable alternative is to allow homosexuals to marry. In fact the legally just thing to do would be to allow marriage between any adults including polygamous or group marriages. Many Americans do not approve of these marriages, but we have no legal reason to deny the right of citizens to participate in them. Of course I'll probably be ridiculed for saying all this.